Trans people are not an inherent threat to free speech

More than two weeks ago D’Anne Witkowski of Pridesource, in her Creep of the Week column discussed the nasty guy saying, “Transgender for everyone.” Does that mean everyone gets a new transgender friend? With an estimated 2.8 million trans people in a population of 342 million, each trans person has to deal with 120 new friends. Not so good for introverts. Or maybe it is a call for body acceptance and positivity? People dress and use pronouns however they want with everyone else respecting their choices. Cool! But probably not – well, definitely not – what the nasty guy means.

The idea that gender isn’t a rigid dichotomy scares the hell out of conservatives. Conservative men believe that women are lesser-than. Thus, for a man to “become a woman,” he is trading in something valuable for something worthless. Conservative men believe similarly about homosexuality. To trade in being straight for being gay is to degrade yourself. In order to make sure a guy doesn’t lose his “man card,” gender roles and gender presentation must be limited to two. If any lines are not clearly visible, a cis het man might accidentally cross one of them. And that must be avoided at all costs. And the costs are very high! Especially when the people who are in control of the whole freaking country believe that masculinity is the highest form of currency next to money and that masculinity requires a high level of cruelty to achieve.

Which is how we got the Department of War. And, no, this is not a distraction. At the end of December Jake Angelo, in an article for Gay Times Magazine and Uncloseted Media posted on Pridesource, discussed Americans leaving Christianity because of LGBTQ+ animus. The article centers on Garth Huelskamp, who is gay and grew up Mormon.

After years of rumination, he couldn't bring himself to live as an openly gay man and be part of the Mormon Church. So he decided to leave. The process — which took about five years — was far more challenging than being open about his sexuality. It included hours of therapy, countless conversations with friends and family, years of turmoil and cut-off relationships from friends and relatives. "I still held a lot of beliefs and values that the Mormon community still had," he says. "I had to internally question all of that; I had to question a lot of the narratives that I've been taught since I was literally a baby. I, quite literally, had to recreate myself from the ground up."

In 2024, 47% of adults left their faith due to treatment of LGBTQ people. That’s up from 29% in 2016. For those under 30 60% left religion for that reason. Yet, conservative denominations remain adamant in their anti-LGBTQ positions. Yes, there are liberal denominations. I am a member at one of them. Psychologist Darrel Ray said the culture makes a change and the church adjusts or goes extinct. Other reasons for leaving are: A denomination’s emphasis on politics and the blurring of church and state. The clergy sexual abuse scandals – leadership that says one thing and does another. Leaving isn’t easy. “The more fundamentalist the beliefs, the harder it is to leave,” according to Ray. Leaving can involve trauma and grief. They realize the community that loved them now hates them just as much. Huelskamp again:

Imagine if you were going in a very intense long-term relationship with someone [and] had a really nasty divorce, and then you find yourself in a world where all of your family and friends, quite literally worship your ex. And so [I feel] a lot of anger in that regard.

He has cut off contact with friends and family who remain Mormon because their participation is an affront to his identity. He is in contact only with those who have also left. He now has a husband and a son. Alix Breeden of Daily Kos reported on the nasty guy’s decision to close the Kennedy Center for two years to renovate it. Critics are saying the real reason for the closure is dropping ticket sales and performers canceling their programs. Breeden reported that the closure is likely illegal, in violation of the law establishing the center. And there’s this quote from the nasty guy:

I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel. So we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble, and some of the marble comes down. But when it’s open, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful.

Which means he’s not planning a simple renovation. He’s planning to tear out the insides and tear down the exterior and rebuild it in his own gaudy tastes. Clio2 of the Kos community posted an LGBTQ news update. Some of the things written about: A tweet from brandontour show that in the Epstein files the nasty guy was mentioned more than 38,000 times, Reid Hoffman – 2,658, Bill Gates – 2,592, Peter Thiel 2,281, Elon Musk 1,116, and a few more, down to Trans people – 0, Drag queens – 0. Michael Mann tweeted links to an article in The Guardian from last fall that says the father of Elon Musk has been accused of sexually abusing his children and stepchildren. Yes, only accused. Even so, this could explain why the son is such a nasty person. In the Olympics, Elis Lundholm, male, of Sweden is the first trans skier in the Winter Olympics. He’s not on hormone therapy. He’ll be competing in the women’s division. Amber Glenn, competing in lady’s figure skating is out and proud. She criticizes the nasty guy and won’t “shut up about politics.” An article in The Pink News reports a landmark study suggests trans women may not have any fitness advantage in sports. There’s no need to keep them off the team. Graham Lineham is a very anti-trans and is trying to open debate on Ireland’s Gender Recognition Act of 2015. His role in the government is not mentioned. An anonymous response:

Graham Linehan is testifying in the Judiciary Committee on "free speech." Naturally, he argues that in order to have "free speech," society must get rid of trans people. "I want everyone to understand that gender ideology and free speech cannot coexist." He means trans people when he says "gender ideology." He's casting trans people existing as an inherent threat to free speech. What he really means is, he wants to bully and harass a minority group without pushback or social ostracization, which he views as impinging on his right to monologue.

QueerAF tweeted a quote and link from their website:

The notion that queerness is "un-African" is one of Britain's most successful lies, and most enduring exports.

Claiming the last area the middle class has to build wealth

Dartagnan of the Daily Kos community discussed how abortion bans affect standard pregnancy care. The reason is simple: Doctors are scared some aspects of formerly routine care, especially around miscarriage, will be interpreted as assisting abortion.

The stakes are no longer limited to the “debate” about abortion itself, but now to implicate the health care of anyone, anywhere, experiencing any type of pregnancy.

Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed Jon Stewart of The Daily Show explaining the nasty guy’s civil fraud trial (the one where the amount he needed to post before appeal was just reduced). The whole case is because the nasty guy lied. He did so frequently in his business deals. Conservative media pundits have been saying this is a victimless crime. The banks were repaid, so no harm done. But the bank was paid less than they would have if the nasty guy was honest. And the money loaned to him wasn’t loaned to someone more honest. And the “everybody does it and no one is caught” excuse isn’t allowed – by many of the same people who excuse the nasty guy – for those who commit fraud in the SNAP food program. The nasty guy lying on business forms isn’t any more victimless than Justice Clarence Thomas receiving “gifts” from billionaires. Though in the case of Thomas the victim is usually democracy. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who discussed the success of Obamacare (coming up to 10 years of full implementation) and a renewed effort by Republicans to kill it.

So the reality of Obamacare’s success won’t deter Republicans who want to destroy it. If anything, the law’s success only increases their determination to kill it, because it shows that, contrary to their ideology, government actually can make Americans’ lives better.

Down in the comments is a cartoon by Randy Bish showing two guys pausing for coffee. One says to the other, “It amazes me how any person with over 90 felony counts against them can keep a straight face while telling people that they are the victim.” Dave Whamond posted a cartoon. A mother says, “My child was killed in a mass shooting!” The nasty guy responds, “Get over it!” Then the nasty guy says, “I’m a victim! I’ve been unjustly persecuted! Nobody has been mistreated as badly as me!” The mother replies, “Get over it!” Earlier this month Clay Jones posted a cartoon on Kos. It shows Justice John Roberts talking to the rest of his Supreme Court colleagues after they ruled that states cannot bar a candidate from the ballot because he committed insurrection and while they are considering whether the nasty guy has immunity from prosecution. The cartoon has Roberts saying, “Voters should be able to choose an insurrectionist while not knowing if he’s a convicted felon.” From mid month a cartoon by Mike Luckovich shows Putin saying, “I grabbed him by the presidency. When you’re a dictator, he lets you do it...” To decide what to write about today I went through old browser tabs. In many of them I decided nah, I don’t want to write about that. Here’s one I found from mid February and thought it worth writing about. It is by SemDem of the Kos community. This writer was annoyed with relatives supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for president. Reports from today say he has chosen his vice president (I really don’t care who) because some states say the VP must be named before he can get on the ballot. The relatives support RFK Jr., though he is caught up in vaccine conspiracies, because he talked about housing affordability and the nasty guy and Biden have said little to none. Kennedy mentioned a big reason why young people have troubles buying houses. Giant corporations are buying up houses and turning them into rentals. They can, when they want to, outbid anyone else trying for the same house. By 2030 corporations may control 40% of single-family rental homes. SemDem wrote, “It truly does appear that the billionaire class really wants to claim the last remaining area the middle class has left to build wealth.” Kennedy has been gaining support because he is campaigning through social media and at college campuses. And by focusing on houses he has a topic of high interest to younger voters. Yes, Biden has mentioned housing and has a plan. But much of what he wants to do is dependent on a Congress vying for how little they can accomplish. SemDem mentions some of Biden’s efforts and efforts of other people. Loosen zoning laws so neighborhoods don’t have to be filled with single family houses to allow more people to fit on available land. Convert office space (a big surplus of that now) to apartments. When Sister visited at Christmas I shared a bit of background on Elon Musk, which explained a lot of things to Sister. What I said was that Musk was raised in South Africa and was quite upset that whites lost their top spot in society and could no longer enforce rules on the black population. Nancy Groutsis of the Kos community read the biography of Musk by Walter Isaacson and pulled out a few things. She said Musk was born and completely immersed in South Africa’s white racist culture until he moved to Canada in 1989. Then she explained what Apartheid culture was like. On NPR Jason DeRose talked about religious churn, people switching faith traditions or leaving religion. Surveys show that about a quarter of Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated. High in departures is the Catholic Church with fewer Protestants leaving. The fewest departures are by black Protestants and Jews. Of those who left nearly half said it was because of negative teaching and treatment of LGBTQ people.

"Religion's negative teaching about LGBTQ people are driving younger Americans to leave church," [Public Religion Research Institute chief executive Melissa] Deckman says. "We found that about 60% of Americans who are under the age of 30 who have left religion say they left because of their religious traditions teaching, which is a much higher rate than for older Americans." ... About one-third of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they no longer identify with their childhood religion because the religion was bad for their mental health. That response was strongest among LGBTQ respondents.

Other reasons for departures: clergy sex abuse and over-involvement in politics. I’m getting close to finishing my taxes. My printer will be cranking out a stack of forms and I hope to have them in the mail by early next week. I’ve been checking the little box that directs $3 to the presidential election campaign fund. This pays candidates so they don’t have to raise so much corporate cash and be as beholden to corporate interests. Just Saying of the Kos community wrote this year one of those candidates is the nasty guy and this federal money given to his campaign will be used to pay his legal bills. So this is a year not to check that box (and to verify your tax software or preparer didn’t check it for you). Perhaps send a donation directly to Biden instead.

You are here to make the pageantry look good

Aldous Pennyfarthing of the Daily Kos community discussed the new book ban in Iowa and the growing fallout from it. As for some of the books banned Pennyfarthing quoted what I think is a press release from the Iowa legislature:

This week, the Iowa City Community School District released a list of 68 books that it removed from schools to comply with the law. Among the titles: “Ulysses” by James Joyce, “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison. ... Beyond Iowa City, the Des Moines Register reports that school districts across the state have removed hundreds of books from their school libraries, also in response to that law. Among these titles: “1984” by George Orwell, “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut and “Forrest Gump” by Winston Groom.

Pennyfarthing wonders why the Bible hasn’t been banned for sex acts. I guess I wasn’t aware how steamy that book can get. This post includes the text of Ezekiel 23:16-21 and ... I’ll let you read it for yourself. Pennyfarthing reminds us that 70% of parents oppose book banning, but the remainder tend to be really loud, so school districts might “err on the side of caution.” Pennyfarthing concludes:

Of course, this movement is likely far less about preventing kids from discovering the existence of sex than keeping them from thinking for themselves—and challenging a Christian dominionist worldview. After all, if you read “The Handmaid’s Tale” and are more focused on the “sex scenes” than the message, you really are a pervert.

Tom Gauld tweeted a cartoon he titled, “The shocking truth of what is going on in our public libraries!” There are four scenes with captions:

A friend recommends a book. “Teens prescribed mind-altering experiences!” An adult reads to children. “Children indoctrinated from an early age!” A youth checks out some books. “Free samples distributed to promote addiction!” A sign for a book club meeting. “Groups gather by night to study arcane texts!”

I had lunch with my friend and debate partner today. At one point in our discussions we had to think to tally all the trials the nasty guy is facing. We got into that topic because Sidney Powell, sometimes known as the kraken and was quite active in spreading election conspiracy theories after the 2020 election, has, in the words of Mark Sumner of Kos, been “harpooned.” Meaning she plead guilty and took a deal of probation to escape her own trial. In return she will be a witness against many of her co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case. That includes the nasty guy. This is quite good news! The other person who asked for a speedy trial is Kenneth Chesebro. His trial begins Monday. Though he played a small part in the whole scheme my friend said the prosecutors have to lay out the entire case, so the trial could take five months. Oh, wait! About the time my friend and I sat down to lunch an Associated Press article was posted on Kos that reports Chesebro also plead guilty. He will also assist the prosecution. So that five month trial is avoided, saving all the evidence for a future five month trial for the nasty guy and the other 16 remaining defendants. It also keeps the prosecution’s trial strategy secret for a while longer. Between now and when the big trial starts hopefully more of those defendants will decide to flip. Sumner provides more detail of Chesebro’s plea deal. Sumner asked why Chesebro seemed to get so little punishment. The answer is, as it is in many cases like this, he is a very valuable witness for the prosecution. He’s more valuable that Powell because there are a lot of videos out there of her saying some mighty weird stuff. Defense could easily say that stuff is so weird one can’t trust anything she says. My friend and I also talked about the situation in the House. Joan McCarter of Kos did a liveblog of what happened. There was another vote on whether Jim Jordan should be Speaker. He lost 25 Republican votes, more than the previous two votes. So Republicans went into a closed-door session and held a secret ballot on whether Jordan should continue his quest or drop out. That vote – remember, it was secret – Jordan lost 86-112, significantly more voted against him than in the public vote. So Jordan is no longer the candidate for Speaker. And other candidates are announcing themselves. One of them is Jack Bergman, whose district covers Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and a good chunk of the north end of the Lower. And Michigan Radio says he took part in some aspect of 2020 election denialism. So Republicans will take the weekend for these new candidates to do their thing with a caucus meeting sometime Monday or Tuesday and a floor vote shortly after that. Rivers posted a cartoon of an old man sitting on a porch with his hand on his dog. He says, “It’s OK Rex... after all the weirdness of this year – the weather, the fires, UAPs, threats of nuclear war and a massive internet attack – I’ve been sort of expecting a portal to another dimension to open up in front of our house...” Back on September 1st Laura Clawson of Kos posted a story about 15 year old Quinn Mitchell of New Hampshire asking a question to candidate Ron DeathSantis. The candidate stumbled over the answer. And then campaign staff and security intimidated Mitchell. The candidate’s wife also got involved and told the boy’s mother, trying to speak mom to mom, the lad had been lying to her about what happened. On October 16th, and I’m puzzled by the six week delay, Hunter of Kos took up the story, this time from Mitchell’s side. The lad has a political podcast and has been asking smart questions of politicians for four years. Politicians respond because they know the value of engaging a teenager. Hunter wrote:

There are a whole host of important life lessons here for Mitchell, but the most pertinent one is that asking "hard questions" of Republican political leaders will immediately get you accused of being an enemy—a Democrat. You are not here to ask hard questions. You are here to make the pageantry for America's Next Dear Leader look good, and by God if you make one of the party's more powerful figures look bad even once you will be labeled, as Donald Trump so often puts it, an "enemy of the state."

About that “hard” question...

The question that caused DeSantis to fall flat on his authoritarian ass, for example, was: “Do you believe that Trump violated the peaceful transfer of power, a key principle of American democracy that we must uphold?” The obviously correct answer is "yes." Politically expedient lies would either be "yes, but" or "no." It's not this kid's fault that DeSantis descended into paranoid gibberish, whining, "I wasn't anywhere near Washington that day" or "I have nothing to do with what happened that day," as if Mitchell was trying to Columbo him into a criminal confession. Nobody could have expected that the petty Florida tyrant would crumble so completely.

With the intimidation Mitchell got he has a dilemma. Play nice (as in lobbing only softball questions) with Republican candidates or be banned from Republican events. An AP article posted on Kos on October 7 discusses the growing number of young people identifying as nones – those that check “none” with asked “What’s your religion?” A recent survey puts them at 30% of US adults.

While the nones’ diversity splinters them into myriad subgroups, most of them have this in common: They. Really. Don’t. Like. Organized. Religion. Nor its leaders. Nor its politics and social stances. That’s according to a large majority of nones in the AP-NORC survey. But they’re not just a statistic. They're real people with unique relationships to belief and nonbelief, and the meaning of life.

The article then features a wide variety of young adults who claim the “none” designation. Some stories are about their bad encounters with organized religion. Others are about their alternate methods of expressing spirituality or finding community. One comment I heard last weekend at my church conference (notes still being typed) was that as our youth walk out the door we should ask them why they’re leaving. Then we should listen to their answers. They can tell us what we need to do to fix our churches.

It is as secular a document as they could make it

I listened to a recent Gaslit Nation episode titled How to Stand Up to a Bully. The transcript is here. Host Andrea Chalupa talked to David McRaney, a science journalist and author of the books You Are Now Less Dumb and How Minds Change. This episode is about the second book. If one has a friend or relative that is caught in an alternate reality and they now bully all who oppose their ideas what can one do? McRaney was sure some minds can’t change, completely unreachable. But in writing the book he changed his mind. One thing that did it is the shift in acceptance of same-sex marriage. How did that happen? He studied what groups did to change minds and saw that even if they didn’t collaborate, they came up with similar techniques. The techniques are similar because that’s how brains work. McRaney discussed how we learn and categorize things. The easiest is to fit a new thing or concept into existing categories. When that won’t work a person is resistant and doesn’t want to expend the effort. Progressives sometimes joke that the right does things because reasons. That’s mostly accurate. Most of the time the reasons are whatever we or they need them to be. What is more important is how our reputation or status fits within our social circle. That means an appeal to logic and evidence will be taken as reasons and dismissed. McRaney explains why someone can fall into a group. I’ll let him explain. Challenging why a person is in a group is the quickest way to get them to reject the attempt. So, what to do? First be very clear, at least to yourself, what your goal is. Is it to change their belief, attitude, value set? Second do not debate! Refuse to be drawn into a debate. Do not bring shame into the conversation. Do not get into I win/you lose. That doesn’t change minds. Part of their bullying is a performance for their peers – and nearly all bullying has spectators of some sort. Start with a position of: I’d like to explore this with you. As: Do you like it? What about it do you like? Probe more deeply from there. With each question elaborate, paraphrase, and mirror. Soon a person may not be able to justify why they like it. Ask for definitions, ask if they have sources. Ask for a rating of confidence and why not higher or lower. Ask them to judge the quality of their reasoning. Give them space to generate their own opinion. In a sense, be a lawyer trying to get their side of the argument to be the best it can be. This pulls them out of debate mode, away from a win-lose situation. Then offer to continue the conversation as many times as it takes. You will be seen as an ally, not an ally in their current position, but an ally in helping them work through the issue. If you want more explanation for that read the transcript ... or the book. Mark Sumner of Daily Kos recognizes Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is smart – he was editor of Yale Law Review. So the tweets coming from Hawley must have another purpose, like trolling. So perhaps it is time for troll hunting. What Hawley is tweeting is putting words in the mouths of Founding Fathers, making it seem they were explicitly building a Christian nation. So Sumner delved into Founding Father’s beliefs. In short, then, as now, there were a wide range of beliefs. Patrick Henry handed out Bible tracts. George Washington was perhaps a member of an Anglican Church and attended a wide variety of churches while remaining vague about his beliefs. Many, such as Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and Founding Mothers Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison, were Deists. That could be described as what Thomas Paine called “nature’s god” – the universe exists so something brought it into existence. Paine also said:

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

And Franklin said:

The most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing good to his other Children.

Which seems in short supply these days. Sumner wrote:

When Jefferson and crew were writing, they invoked “the creator” or “the divine” or “the spirit” of this and that because they simply had no other options. So far as they were aware, there was neither the time nor the means by which the universe might have been produced sans magic wand.

But that doesn’t mean they’re referring to Christianity.

Just about the only thing this diverse group really agreed on when it came to religion was that they wanted to keep it out of their government. Their own experience with state religions of all types showed that religion was harmful to the state, and the state was harmful to religion. This is why the only mentions of religion in the Constitution are in places where the founders went out, collected a set of 20-foot poles, and placed them firmly between any expression of religion and anything to do with the government. There’s not a Bible, a Jesus, or a GD God in the whole thing, much less any overt expression of Christianity. It is as secular a document as they could make it, expressly to protect their diversity of beliefs. And disbelief. ... That’s America: A secular nation by design, made so by a group of people who realized that only a secular nation could protect their views on religion.

Laura Clawson of Kos discussed Casey, the wife of Ron DeathSantis. She’s a lot more photogenic and personable than her husband, but just as nasty. She and Mamas for DeSantis are all about parental rights and how they will go all out to protect the innocence of their (well, everbody’s) children. Yeah, we’ve been hearing about various attempts like this for quite a while now. Clawson adds:

“Innocence” is key here, and translates as “ignorance” when it comes to the existence of people different from their families.

Clawson discussed a video put out by Mamas for DeSantis in which they make clear, “They’re not yours. These are our kids.” So it’s offensive for the nation to have an interest in the welfare of all children? And as you protect your children you get to ban books that other children desperately need? Clawson included the video. But it’s all hate and rage. Which makes one wonder why to humanize a candidate one must go this ugly this early. Is ugly all they have? Meteor Blades of Kos wrote another Earth Matters post. In this one he discusses the farm bill. It is revised and renewed every five years. The next one is to be approved in September. Along with it is a renewal of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that is 80% of the bill’s funds (and nearly all of its wrangling). Blades explains many reasons why this bill is quite different from what America and the world need right now. He concludes this section of the article with:

Reviving rural America and securing ecologically sound agriculture means weaning farmers off the chemical teat. It means revamping the USDA and the land-grant institutions to innovate and promote rather than treat organic agriculture as niche operations run by modern hippies. It means putting up obstacles to the further industrialization of farming. It means recognizing that we cannot continue to draw down aquifers without replenishing them if we are to avoid titanic future impacts. Climate change requires quick action in all these matters. Just as difficult, if not more so, will be dealing with the concentration of agribusiness. Four companies now control 90% of the global grain market. One of those four, Cargill, and three others control 85% of U.S. feedlot cattle. Forty percent of U.S. farmers don’t own the land they farm. Seasonal farmworkers make up a super-exploited workforce without nearly enough protections even compared with other U.S. low-wage earners. And then there are the millions of consumers for whom healthy, affordable food is often out of reach. To Americans, agrarian reform has always seemed a project for developing countries, what used to be called the Third World. But the U.S. needs its own comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act. Unfortunately, one thing we can count on is that this year’s farm bill won’t come close to being anything like that.

Blades discussed several other things, one of them is a survey on what voters are thinking about renewable energy. They support adopting good policies in general. But supporting specific policies is different. “For example, most Americans oppose ending the production of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.” In the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos Denise Oliver Velez posted cartoons. John Deering of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette shows an ad painted on a bus stop bench, “Worried you might be asked to provide a service you aren’t currently providing anyway? Better Call Scotus! Proactive discrimination. No case? No problem!” Mike Luckovich drew a cartoon of a woman with a massive “student loan debt” strapped to her back and the GOP Court tells her, “You also have to carry that to term...”

When we disown any obligation to others society becomes untenable

John Stoehr of the Editorial Board discussed the question: Why are Republican governors killing off their constituents? He talked to Casey Ryan Kelly, professor of public culture ant University of Nebraska – Lincoln, who wrote the book Apocalypse Man: The Death Drive and the Rhetoric of White Masculine Victimhood. Over the last 40 years Republicans have forged their identity on a contradiction. On one side they claim they have been exiled from politics and marginalized in society. On the other they have gained so much they are close to minority rule. This perennial victimhood allows them to disavow their privilege and their overwhelming dominance in politics. An example: A university invites a far right person (such as Richard Spencer) to come to campus to speak. Liberals protest. The speaker is disinvited or withdraws out of fear of “riots.” Conservative media runs stories about oppressive campus culture. Liberals are portrayed as intolerant for not accepting intolerant speakers. Conservatives gain cultural power by looking like victims of discrimination. They gain (the appearance of) sympathy from people who want to remain neutral. The death drive is a compulsion to repeat a moment in the past where a person imagines they were whole and without the psychic tension caused by trauma. That’s why the nasty guy’s slogan is Make America Great Again. But we were never whole and without tension. We only tell ourselves that to manage loss. Kelly said: Trump intones the same message repetitively: the world used to be better (sometime, anytime, in the past). Your birthright

entitlements were stripped from you: your history, your culture, your wealth were taken away by radical leftist Democrats. Wouldn’t it be nice to go back to when we didn’t have to contend with so many mysterious and nefarious social forces (the 1950s or perhaps even earlier when people knew their place)? The repetition of this message invites his supporters to imagine themselves as victims of loss and trauma, and to long for a return to something better (even though the past was not any better. It had its problems, too). ... I am fascinated by the notion that one must risk infection to demonstrate conservative credentials. It is literalizing the death drive: prove your loyalty by avoiding any care or concern for your own health and safety. I’ve seen people call getting covid “owning the libs.”

This takes us to the situation where for them the ultimate humiliation is conceding they are not a fully autonomous person who owes something to others. But when we disown any obligation to others society becomes untenable. Anything that is a collective duty is an affront. But refusing to consider another’s needs and safety dooms oneself. Nothing is gained but the satisfaction of knowing you were right. Greg Dworkin, in a pundit roundup for Daily Kos, quoted Chrissy Stroop of Religion Dispatches. Stroop lamented that mainstream media is slow to cover non religious people and secular issues fairly and accurately.

On the issue of media representation of secularism and secular Americans, Levin, the founder and head of Secular Strategies and co-chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Interfaith Council, has a point. Nonreligious Americans are generally a pro-social bunch, and overwhelmingly in favor of the very rights the anti-social, anti-democratic Christian Right is actively working to take away, like voting rights, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ rights. Yet, according to the legacy media’s punditocracy, America’s rapid secularization is something we should all be terrified of.

Dworkin also quoted a tweet by Peter Manseau from July 2021 that seems to have been a forecast:

Six months later, we're about midway through the GOP's inevitable insurrection journey: That was bad. Bad, but understandable. Understandable. Understandable, and possible good? Yes, that was good. Good, and maybe necessary. Necessary. Let's do it again.

Chitown Kev, in a pundit roundup for Kos, quoted Elisabeth Anker of the New York Times and white people’s meaning of freedom. A country that permitted owning slaves meant only white people should be free. The free white master was able to torture and rape of the humans he owned. Husbands were free in their control over their wives. Her freedom was at her husband’s discretion. White men had the freedom to control business decisions and public spaces.

These are but a few examples of how claims for “freedom” have long suppressed the rights of nonwhites, women and workers. It is true the language of freedom was central to emancipation, suffrage and democratic movements of all kinds, but it has also justified violence and discrimination.

Yep, the white people’s definition of freedom is the ability to oppress. Shriya Bhattacharya of Kos Prism discussed why it is time to get rid of standardized tests used in college admission. Some of the reasons given: * Taking the tests during a pandemic is much more stressful. Students can barely deal with classes, home life, and an uncertain future. Students are deciding the tests are not worth it. * The tests themselves are biased against students of color. Their origin in the early 20th century wasn’t so much of proving a student’s mastery over subject, rather keeping immigrants out with the fear of the decline of the education system. Scores have been shown to correlate with family income. * Students with non white backgrounds, such as Asian and Native American, speak English with a different sentence structure and interpret questions based on different values, beliefs, and experiences. * Students from poor families struggle with the cost of taking the tests and with the cost of test preparation. If students, the customers of higher education, are deciding standardized test scores are not useful to them many colleges will stop requiring them. Christopher Reeves of Kos discussed a moral federal budget. This is an idea presented by the Poor People’s Campaign, Kairos, Repairers of the Breach, and the Institute for Policy Studies. Republicans are outraged at the annual $170 billion cost of the Build Back Better bill yet give $778 billion a year for national defense, including $75 billion a year to top contractor Lockheed Martin. A budget reflects our values. There is a serious problem here. Wrote Reeves:

We have to have a real talk about what a moral nation looks like, and how we can put our budget in line with our values. What values are the most important to us? How do we build a budget that provides us the future that emphasizes helping all humanity instead of helping a few?

Here is this week’s pro vaccination memes collected by Kos of Kos. My favorites: The first is a sign is beside a bottle of hand sanitizer labeled “Paper Cut Finder.”

If Darth Vader can destroy galaxies in a mask, you can shop in one for 20 minutes. Oh, you allow unvaccinated children at your school? Tell me again why my kid can’t bring peanut butter.

Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?

Yesterday I wrote that Democrats were going to try a reconciliation maneuver to get the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Act before the Senate. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos explained the process in more detail. Democrats will take a bill that has passed both chambers and had made a few reconciliation trips back and forth but with the two chambers still apart on a final text. In this case the Senate cannot filibuster debate of the bill. I had written that the House would gut the existing bill and replace the text with these two other bills. McCarter said that didn’t happen. The text of the original bill – a NASA funding bill – is still there. The voting rights bills have been added to it. The House passed the combined bill along party lines on Thursday morning. It now goes before the Senate for debate. I missed another detail yesterday. The Senate cannot filibuster the start of debate on the bill. The chamber can filibuster the final vote on the bill. So doing something about the filibuster – carving out an exception, demand senators actually hold the floor for the duration, or actually ending it – is still necessary. Even just debating the bill is a plus – Senators will actually declare why they are or are not voting for it. Laura Clawson of Kos discussed an opinion piece written by former President Obama for USA Today. Obama worked over each of the reasons why this legislation must pass. Otherwise we face a “slow unraveling of basic democratic institutions and electoral mechanisms.” He also noted the unraveling doesn’t just happen, it is being made to happen, and it is Republicans making it happen. So Democrats need to act. Clawson wrote:

Obama takes on the people who claim they are protecting the institution of the Senate by protecting the filibuster, and does so on two grounds. Directly, he points out that “The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution,” and that its use became routine only in recent years. Changing it does not shake the foundations on which the nation rests. But that’s where Obama makes an indirect case that anyone who says they’re protecting the institution, or the norms, is wrong to allow the filibuster to get in the way of passing voting rights legislation: because democracy itself is America’s most important institution. Allowing the filibuster to unravel basic democratic institutions is far more harmful, he argues, than creating another exception to its dominance of the Senate.

As part of the article Obama wrote:

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

So, you wayward Democrats, are you going to restrict gerrymandering or will you be complicit in the dismantling of Democracy? A few days ago Biden gave an impassioned speech on voting rights. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported on Moscow Mitch’s response. He accused Biden’s speech of being “incoherent, incorrect and beneath his office.” It was “deliberately divisive” and “poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire” of political warfare. Mitch promised to make the Senate the biggest hellscape in living memory. Eleveld wrote:

Guess what, folks—this is exactly the debate Democrats want to be having heading into the midterms: Which party is really standing up for American democracy and which party is trying to tear it down?

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki started that debate by lamenting that Mitch has changed his position on voting rights – he used to be for them. And Democrats helpfully had a video already prepared that shows a series of Mitch’s past statements in praise of voting rights. Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed Mitch’s changing position on the filibuster and has videos of previous statements going back to 2005. Republicans have their own line of attack. Kelsey Snell of NPR discussed it. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida tried it out. He is working to redefine the Big Lie as Democrats saying Republican election reform is racist voter suppression. Schumer responded that this idea, saying Mitch’s rant is the definition of gaslighting. McCarter reported on the remarks Sen. Kyrsten Sinema gave on the Senate floor yesterday. Wrote McCarter:

Sinema’s floor remarks were a stab in the back to President Joe Biden (and all her Democratic colleagues) moments before Biden was scheduled to meet with her. She insisted that she really does support the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights bills, but that they “treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the diseases and while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division affecting our country.” Meaning she would not help Republicans break the filibuster in order to pass these bills she supports. Because both sides. Literally. She both-sides-ed Jan. 6 and the Big Lie. She doubled down on that, literally blaming Democratic leadership for not working harder to get Republicans to work with them. “I wish there had been a more serious effort on the part of Democratic Party lines to sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to reforge common ground on these issues,” she said. Never mind that the Freedom to Vote Act was entirely rewritten by Joe Manchin to get Republicans on board and every single one of them refused. And when Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to bring the bill to the floor, Republicans filibustered the motion to proceed to it—they didn’t even allow the Senate to debate it. She might as well have announced her defection to the Republicans in that speech, because in practicality that’s what she did. She’s supporting Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s veto of these bills and everything else in Biden’s legislative agenda, essentially. She’s trying to call it principle about the sanctity of the filibuster, but she had no problem voting just last month to break the filibuster to raise the debt ceiling. Which makes her pretty much a Republican. She’s got the lying and the trolling down pat.

Sigh. The whole process will be delayed because a couple of the Democrat senators are out with COVID. Hunter of Kos discussed what big corporations are saying and doing as voting rights bills come up for a vote. A year ago many companies decided siding with insurrectionists was not a good corporate look and stopped donating. Then Republicans threatened them (essentially saying if you stop bribing us we’ll stop working for you) and they began to donate again. Several companies cam out in support of voting rights. That’s good. But passing voting rights depends on filibuster reform. Are these companies also willing to say the Senate needs to reform the filibuster? Judd Legum asked 100 companies. Two gave their support. The rest evaded or didn’t respond. Are these companies avoiding making any sort of statement that might displease the white nationalist movement that could overtake the US government? The nasty guy has kept control of the Republican party by saying keep your mouth shut or you will be targeted. It works because most members of the party are gutless cowards. If even a small contingent condemned the nasty guy propaganda he would lose his power. In the same way if several companies called out these anti-democracy moves they could stop them. But it seems they only want a bit of shine on their image and don’t really care about democracy. Leah McElrath tweeted that 1,110 former workers of the Department of Justice sighed a letter urging faster action to bring accountability to higher-level actors of the insurrection. This is an unprecedented move. McElrath included a link to a report about the letter at Medium. Don Winslow tweeted the reason for urging faster action:

More time is def the answer: 1. Stormy Daniels 5 years ago =no charges. Statute out. 2. Comey/Obstruction: 4.5 years ago (no charges) 3. SDNY 3_+ years (no charges) 4. Mueller 2.5 years ago (no charges to Trump/family) 5. NY AG 2+ years (no charges) 6. NY DA 2+ year (no charges)

Ryan Burge tweeted statistics about religious affiliation by generation. He also included a chart.

71% of the Silent Generation is Protestant or Catholic. 63% of Boomers 53% of Gen X 42% of Millennials 37% of Gen Z 18% of the Silent Generation are nones. 25% of Boomers 35% of Gen X 43% of Millennials 45% of Gen Z There are clearly more nones in Gen Z than Cath/Prot.

Dr. Tara Smith, professor of infectious disease epidemiologist, wrote about her experience with free speech on social media:

I see some folks dismayed that Twitter banned MTG today, pushing the idea that the answer to bad speech isn't removal from the platform, but instead more "good speech" to counter it. I wish that was true and that it worked that way. But it doesn't.

She had a blog discussing HIV. It attracted HIV deniers and their comments. She didn’t ban them (and may not have had that option at the time) so had to spend a lot of time countering their bogus claims.

Basically, SM companies have the choice I did when my blog was active and infested with HIV deniers--argue fruitlessly, or ban. As an academic, I wish everyone were rational and we could discuss these topics with a level head & have the facts win out in the end. But that's exactly the problem with mis/disinformation. It's not a level playing field and never has been. Facts & rational discussion can help (I still do it!) but for many, it's an emotion-driven reaction that misinformation proponents take advantage of. And so unfortunately, one of the only ways to keep it from spreading is to kick out those doing so. Make your place less hospitable to those spreading it, or risk those who thrive on misinformation making themselves comfy & taking over.

Reconciling science and God in strange ways

My friend and debate partner wrote to me about a science article in the New York Times. The article is about the latest research in subatomic particles and the tantalizing (at least to subatomic particle researchers) question of why there is more matter than anti-matter. Before your eyes glaze over this posting is not about quark flavors and other such stuff. My friend and debate partner wrote:

Then... the last paragraph:

Joe Lykken, a theorist at Fermilab, said, "So I would not say that this announcement is the equivalent of seeing the face of God, but it might turn out to be the toe of God.”

WHAT is going ON here? Nothing that happens in science can ever get us to "God", much less God's "face" or "toe". That's religious interpretation! Of an immature sort!
Could scientists please tend to their knitting? Could someone please lift Lykken's spokesperson-to-press credentials?

I am not about to offer a defense of Lykken. My friend is right. However, a bit of insight might be useful.

A science has explained more and more things that religion used to explain (like how humans came to be) some highly religious scientists have tried to explain how God works and still be something we should believe in. I've heard about lots of miraculous healings and I believe that God plays a part in them. Now that we're understanding some atomic structure yet so much of it is still mysterious some of these religious scientists have proposed the idea that God takes advantage of atomic uncertainties to manipulate the outcomes God wants. It sounds like a lot of nonsense to me too.

All that comes down to people trying to reconcile science and religion, which is better than religion being antagonistic to science. But better yet would be not making the attempt.

Reassuring churches and they reassure us

Yesterday I wrote about a survey of pastors in mainline liberal denominations and the difference of opinion towards gay marriage when assurances are added to laws exempting churches from having to perform such marriages.

Today I found out a bit more. The 6 churches (in order of their support of gays) are:

United Church of Christ
Episcopal Church
Disciples of Christ
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
United Methodist Church
American Baptist Churches (distinct from Southern Baptist)

These are probably the denominations most familiar to America (only Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists have more members). Alas, they aren't the loudest.

In addition to that bit about the effect of assurances on views of gay marriage, here are some other findings from that survey of clergy from these denominations:

* 79% agree that gays should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

* 67% support gay-inclusive hate crime laws.

* 66% support employment non-discrimination laws.

* 55% support adoption by gays.

* 33% support gay marriage and another 32% support civil unions.

This last is not uniform across the 6 denominations. 67% of UCC pastors support gay marriage while only 25% of United Methodist pastors do and only 20% of American Baptist pastors do. The big news is that 45% of clergy are more supportive than they were 10 years ago.

More good news:

* 94% of these pastors say churches should welcome gays into the church.

* 63% say the bible requires full inclusion.

* 51% say the church should not demonize gays.

* 45% say gays should be ordained without restriction.

* 13% of these pastors have lead their congregations to formally become "open and affirming".

These denominations have the potential to be our allies in our civil rights battles.

We'll give you the word marriage if you'll stick around to use it

A petition drive has been launched in Calif. to get the state out of the marriage business. If some 650,000 signatures can be gathered by August there will be a proposal on the ballot that says Calif. recognizes domestic partnerships for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Then churches could use the word marriage however they want.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune believes gays should not have gone back to the Calif. Supremes when voters put the marriage ban in the constitution. He has 3 reasons.

1. The power of the government really does rest with the people. It is better to persuade the people then to enforce a your point of view (yeah, we get annoyed when the other side does it to us).

2. Gays (at least in Calif.) are close to overturning the ban anyway (approval for gay marriage has gone up 9% in 8 years -- another 3 years should do it).

3. It isn't good to get the Supremes to overturn the rule of the people when you may need to turn to the people for a different outcome in a few years.

With the way religion is faring in America, if we leave marriage to the churches might we end up not using the word sometime soon? The American Religious Identification Survey has published its 2008 results, based on 54,000 interviews, and compared it to their 1990 results. In that time America has 50 million more adults yet almost all denominations have lost membership. In terms of percent of population (rather than percent of membership) church affiliation is down drastically. In particular, non-Catholic Christians have lost population percentages in 46 states and gained in only two. Those who describe themselves as having no religion have gained percentage in all states, from 2% in Arkansas to 21% in Vermont. That translates to those declaring no religion now being 15% of the population, up from 8% in 1990.

Putting it another way, Christian denominations are working hard to make themselves irrelevant to today's world. No need to reserve the word marriage for the churches because soon churches won't be around to use it.